Steven Hood v. Julius Wilson, Warden

The Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District*
of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0497n.06
No. 09-3165
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN HOOD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JULIUS WILSON, WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: COLE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; MAYS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Steven Hood appeals the district court’s denial of his petition
for habeas corpus. Because Hood’s period of incarceration has expired, we find the appeal is now
moot. See United States v. Waltanen, 356 F. App’x 848, 851 (6th Cir. 2009) (“If a prisoner does not
challenge the validity of the conviction but rather only challenges his sentence or some aspect of it,
the request for relief is moot once the challenged portion of the sentence has expired.”) (quoting
United States v. Goldberg, 239 F. App’x 993, 994 (6th Cir. 2007)). The sole issue before this court
is whether Hood’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge his sentence of
incarceration pursuant to State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006). On February 6, 2006, Hood
was sentenced to five years of incarceration, with eligibility for judicial release after serving four

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-3165
Stephen Hood v. Julius Wilson
- 2 -
years. On February 24, 2010, Hood sent a letter to the court stating that he had been discharged from
his prison term on February 22, 2010. Because he has served the challenged portion of his sentence,
his petition is DISMISSED as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --